Hi, Am 27.04.2016 um 11:01 schrieb Duncan:
> Detlef Graef posted on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:46:50 +0200 as excerpted: > >> Hi Petr, >> >> Am 26.04.2016 um 17:33 schrieb Petr Kovar: >> >> [...] >> >> >>>> Maybe someone may have a look at this patch too, if they are any >>>> obvious problems? >>> >>> Would like to; do you have a working patch handy? If not, I could try >>> to prepare one. >>> >>> This one won't merge as you say: >>> >>> https://git.gnome.org/browse/pan2/patch/? > id=f7d917d4cbecab754b6cb6cb032fbd0705896e90 >> >> It won't merge because body-pane.cc was modified till then. >> >> I can create a (git) patch, because I have manually applied the above >> patch to the current source. I've tested Pan with the applied patch >> without any problem till now. >> >> I will send you the patch, so you can test it. > > Has anyone CCed or direct-mailed Heinrich asking about it? (Petr, you're > in the best position to know if he's asked not to be contacted, or left a > forwarding address with you, or ...) I hate to bother him if he's not on- > list and replying any more, as seems to be the case, but seems to me if > he took the patch back out he's the best person to ask why. > > For me, "leave it in for now" reads more like a backward compatibility > issue than an actual bug with the replacement code per se. Maybe the > replacement code works well enough on current gtk2 or whatever library, > but not on the then-current minimum supported version of same. In that > case, testing it on reasonably current setups isn't likely to help, but > it might for example fail to build on RHEL 5 (google says supported by RH > until Mar, 2017) or 6 (Nov, 2020) or some such, due to too old libraries > or code that doesn't work in old gcc. > > In which case it'd be a policy question of whether we want to update the > minimum requirements and effectively drop support for building on those > old platforms without requiring dependency-hell updates. > > Personally, I'm pretty forward leaning, not only running gentoo, but > running the ~arch (aka testing) keyword, and even installing live-git for > specific packages (like pan, where I've been live-git for ages) or even > entire subsystems (like kde4 some time ago, and now kde/frameworks/plasma/ > apps5), so while I understand concerns about supporting ancient versions > of whatever, I'm not the best person to ask about where to draw the line, > in practice. I don't think this patch will brake anything on older OS or libraries. This patch moves the cleanup work from the main() function to the destructor/dtor of the class BodyPane where the corresponding allocation of the resources are done. From the point of view of software design I think this is more clean. The cleanup work is now done when the object is deleted, that's the correct solution I think. Maybe the patch can be improved, but using g_atexit() to do the cleanup for an object is not the right way I think. Maybe I am wrong, any other opinions? Detlef _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
